LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Published
4:00 am PDT, Friday, April 29, 2005

Pharmacists' 'choice' to refuse some drugs?

Editor -- Regarding Debra J. Saunders' column, " 'Choice' means no choice" (April 28): I don't know what pharmacists have been doing for the past 40 years whenever they have been handed a prescription for birth-control pills or other contraception.

Perhaps they have not been following their consciences as Saunders seems to believe they should be allowed to do. Perhaps they just now are developing consciences, or just now are feeling emboldened to jump on the anti- contraception bandwagon that has become so popular with the religious right.

Saunders, however, does miss the point about "choice" in this matter. People who are so opposed to birth control have the "choice" not to seek employment in the prescription-filling sector of pharmacology. They can make other career choices. No one is forcing them to be pharmacists.

And consumers have the "choice" not to patronize drug stores or pharmacies that refuse to dispense legal medication.

I, for one, will not be buying a greeting card, lipstick or a roll of film from any pharmacy that refuses to fill prescriptions related to contraception. That's my choice.

JO-ANNA PIPPEN

Albany

A pharmacist who does not want to dispense legally approved and regulated medications should choose a different career. That is choice.

JURGEN M. LORENZ

Pacifica

Editor -- Debra J. Saunders tries to rationalize the "choice" exercised by pharmacists who choose not to do their jobs.

Do firefighters get to "choose" whom not to rescue? Maybe a cop or two don't want to bust people on marijuana charges. But it's the law.

There is a time for these holier-than-thou folks who live on such high moral ground to decide on which medications they will or won't dispense, and that's when they're applying to pharmacy school.

ELAINE HAMILL

San Francisco

Editor -- Debra J. Saunders lends her support to those conscience- stricken pharmacists who believe they should be free to refuse filling legally available remedies that happen to conflict with their own sentiments. She wonders how come they don't get to choose. Of course there's that small matter of their choice completely negating the legal choice the customer has made.

Prospective pharmacists should accept that their profession involves dispensing drugs, not judgments. Any pharmacists-of-conscience who missed that lesson have the option of finding other work that allows them to live purely within their own belief system.

DAVID KELSO

Oakland

Science, faith at odds

Editor -- Richard N. Zare states in his commentary that "science and faith are not in opposition" ("Science is not just a matter of opinion," Open Forum, April 28). Frankly, Professor Zare could hardly be more wrong. Science -- or rather the scientific method -- is a process by which an assertion is formulated and tested through experimentation. Religion, which is another name for myth, relies on faith, which is unfounded belief or superstition.

The scientific method and faith are completely inapposite. By way of illustration, another article in the same issue of The Chronicle, "Scientists at UCLA create nuclear fusion," tells how researchers used a tried-and-true method in arriving at their discovery. That news is not so shocking. What would be shocking would be to read that the pope and the College of Cardinals, through intense prayer, created nuclear fusion.

RICHARD SUTHERLAND

Los Altos

'Faith-based' jargon

Editor -- Looks like we are again assaulted by Orwellian "newspeak." In your article headlined "Coalition seeks male-female marriage definition," you refer to "faith-based and conservative political organizations" working for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "between a man and a woman."

"Faith-based"? Shall we define our terms? As The Chronicle is well aware, "faith-based" is political code for right-wing religious groups, mostly fundamentalist Christians of various denominations.

Does no one other than these religious conservatives have "faith"? It's the same group that gave us "value-voters," as if no one other than those of their political stripe had any "values."

Of course, using the correct term -- "religious" -- forces everyone to confront the nasty underlying fact that these groups are pushing a religious agenda on the country and its citizens, whether we agree with them or not. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to the "free exercise" of religion.

I expect The Chronicle to call these "faith-based" groups what they are: "religious." By accepting their self-awarded label of "faith-based," you contribute to the propaganda of those who would seek to remake all of us in their own intolerant image.

DOLORES CORDELL

Fairfax

Where are safeguards?

Editor -- In the article, "Nuclear is key to energy future" (Open Forum, April 28), the director general of the World Nuclear Association, John Ritch, admits there are legitimate public concerns about the expansion of nuclear energy, including security against terrorism and the safe storage of nuclear waste. Ritch attempts to reassure the public about the risk of terrorism by stating that "strong, universal safeguards can ensure that civil nuclear facilities do not increase that risk."

Unfortunately, there are not now any strong safeguards in place in the United States, much less "universal" safeguards that Ritch says can avoid increasing risk. In fact, the same day's Chronicle carries an article entitled, "Chemical plants called vulnerable to terrorists." It notes that the U.S. government does not currently regulate the security of privately operated chemical plants even though terrorist attacks on them would be a major threat to the American public.

To reassure the American public about nuclear waste, Ritch states that the volume of such waste "can be reliably contained and managed."

He also states that only four countries are even "moving to construct" deep geological repositories, much less have them in place and usable, and the rest of the world is not even moving to construct them.

DAVID M. WEITZMAN

Berkeley

Perata's bid for school-tax boost

Editor -- Our elementary school is facing a deficit next year -- one that our parents are strategizing on how to make up.

Kudos to state Senate President Don Perata, D-Oakland, for speaking up for increased education funding ("Tax increase proposed for state school funds, " April 27).

If Proposition 98 had not been suspended and if the state had fully funded mandated reimbursements, our schools wouldn't be facing a large budget shortfall. Your reporter covering San Francisco Unified School District budget issues should point this out.

Your readers need to know how our schools are being starved of resources. We must invest in our children. Our schools need the resources to educate the leaders of tomorrow.

SUZANNE MORIKAWA MADDEN

San Francisco

Editor -- I have a great idea for Don Perata as to where he can find the additional money he wants to dump into the ever-increasing K-12 school budgets. Eliminate the exemption/credits that taxpayers receive for having dependent children under the age of 18 on their California state tax returns.

I doubt Perata and his caucus will go for this idea, though. It makes too much sense.

By that I mean: Why not have the taxpayers who are actually responsible for that expense actually share in the cost?

DAVID R. DORAZIO

Redwood City

Editor -- It is great that state Senate leader Don Perata is speaking up for increased education funding. He couldn't have said it better -- that we can't educate our kids "on the cheap."

Readers must be aware that the lack of investment in our children today will create a bigger drain on our society in the future.